Posted on 02/23/2006 6:13:09 PM PST by new yorker 77
The conventional wisdom on the Dubai Ports World deal seems to have shifted in the last 24 hours. In the blogosphere the focus has jumped from its initial target -- the agreement itself -- to a new and familiar one: President Bush. For instance, Glenn Reynolds has decided:
I don't think there's any real security issue here, but I think the Bush Administration needs to launch a full-bore effort to explain what's actually going on, something that they still haven't really mounted...
I will admit that my knee jerked on hearing this story, and that I should have waited to learn more before offering an opinion. In my defense, I'll note that I gathered more information and changed my mind. Still, mea culpa.
But (and this is a separate point from the merits of the decision, or of my take thereon) it wasn't just me -- there were an awful lot of knees jerking on this decision, and the White House, or somebody, should have foreseen that. That doesn't get me off the hook, of course, but it doesn't reflect well on them, either.
James Lileks retreats somewhat as well:
The Bush administration may well be in the right, but they have handled this poorly – the remarks about vetoing any Congressional efforts to block the sale may have been aimed at Congress, but they splashed right in the face of the voters. The crafty response would have been to acknowledge the worries, assure a complete and total review and disclosure, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Meanwhile Tim Cavanaugh offers examples of some points he thinks Bush should have made. Like Reynolds, he says the DPW deal "doesn't involve port security, and if opponents think there's a security risk they haven't provided any evidence for that." But according to Cavanaugh, Bush is in trouble because he was caught flat-footed and unprepared to argue such straightforward points. He asks:
Who could get out of this fix?
I'll tell you who: NAFTA-era Bill Clinton, that's who! Explaining stuff like this is what Bill Clinton lived for. Just think back to that Clintonian love of factoids, that congenial explanation of the benefits that you, the listener, will directly receive, that enthusiastic drive to get you to share the president's love of policy minutiae. Clinton was great at this stuff because, whatever else he was, he was a man of the people. He understood (as Bush does) the benefit of a barrier-free market that might leave, say, Dubai Ports World providing services to American harbors. And he knew that populist panics are stupid and almost always wrong. But unlike Bush, he realized that populist panics come from deep within people's hearts, and that you have to respect that.
Critics have raised some serious concerns over the DPW deal, and it is clear that Bush made a mistake by brushing off these concerns. To be sure, there is a strong opposition that will not be won over so easily on the merits of the agreement (see Malkin, Hewitt, Huffington). So far, though, it is the pundits who are doing the backtracking, not the President.
Posted by Nick Nordseth on February 23, 2006 04:45 PM
I think Sean is under Michelle Malkin's spell :-)
"Michelle Malkin is against any foreigner doing business here or migrating here"
That's nonsense. She takes a hard line against illegals and arab countries, so what?
Not only is Sean an intellectual lightweight, he's intellectually dishonest as well.
They wouldn't need a terminal here with all the terminals they
already have overseas.
Yes, Rush gets a paper from Karl Rove outlining what Rove wants covered in the show each day.
If I ever need fruitcake, I'll know where to find some.
She's a "hair on fire" reactionary.... JMHO
Karl Rove lied on Hannity about UAE recognizing Israel's right to exist. Who's being dishonest?
Exactly, that's my point. If they want to attack us, they dont need to shuffle the paper work in 6 of our Ports to do it
I think EVERYONE was against it the way it came out at first, the headline was sensational. ARABS CONTROLLING OUR PORTS! AHHHH!
Do you have the transcript, I listened to that interview and don't remember hearing that
Maybe it would have been better with no debate, now the terrorists are very well aware of which ports the UAE will be running and all the rest.
"If it wasn't for us, there would have been no debate."
Us? You're kidding.
Says who? It's not a matter of US intelligence. It's a matter of the corporate structure of this company, their past performance, and their commitments they've made as part of this transaction.
None of that is classified.
Actually, I heard George Stephy on the ABC radio news saying just what you did...
That Schumer, Hillary and gang are thrilled to be "to the right" of President Bush on this...
We have one plus...this is only February...and hopefully, their LEFTINESS will overtake any advantage they think they have gotten from this...
I saw the "hearing" today...and the President's men were very, very good in explaining their positions...and the dem Senators really acted like they didn't know what questions to ask...
They just kept asking them if they had contacted the 9/11 commission!!! puh-lllllllleeeze!
They actually believe it.
Sean Vannity grew even more tiresome than usual this week. If you listened Tuesday you could stop for the week, because it's been the same stuff - verbatim - the rest of the week.
Why in the hell would the UAE attack us? Our air force is already in their country!
Not yelling at you. You get it.
Beats me.
My guess is that the way this whole process is ginned up involves the case that if it occurs when a RAT is Prez. then no one will hear much about it. Ceertainly not from the MSM gang. The prez. is just obeying the law, it will be said. However,,,,,,,if the prez. is a Pubbie, then "grounds for impeachment" will be wave about in the MSM halls of "wisdom". Right? Sure
Isn't Malkin a Filipina? There are foreigners and there are foreigners. I give the Phillipines special status for World War II. They were suffering hell from the Japanese while we were beating up on Mussolini.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.